Court Immunity Explained
When considering the possibility of suing a court over an issue such as a personal injury action, one must first understand the concept of judicial immunity. The doctrine of judicial immunity provides that courts and judges enjoy immunity from tort suits filed by third parties for acts committed by the courts or judges in their judicial role. This means that generally, a court cannot be sued for negligence. Courts are afforded immunity because they perform a number of essential functions that require judges to make judgments on many issues and often, those judgments adversely affect one of the parties even if the court’s decision is later determined to be incorrect. As such, the ruling judge would be at risk of being sued by the party on the adverse end of the ruling. If a court was at risk for being sued by a disgruntled party in every case the judge handled, this would obviously discourage some judges from performing essential functions that are vital to the proper operation of the judicial system. On the other side of the coin , if a court or judge where sued for negligence on an issue arising from a personal injury action as your particular situation details, allegations of negligence against the court that are made after a personal injury judgment is returned in a lawsuit would only be an excuse for another bite at the apple by an aggrieved litigant who just lost the personal injury lawsuit. This would create an enormous burden on our judicial system and could result in the collapse of the civil justice system if litigants were allowed to sue courts and judges for acting on any issue that caused injury to one of the parties. However, courts do not enjoy blanket immunity for all acts that they perform. For example, a court would not enjoy immunity for acts performed outside its jurisdiction. Additionally, a court could not knowingly or intentionally violate a statute. Finally, it is important to know that as a general rule, judges are immune from suit for decisions rendered in their judicial capacity. In other words, judges are fair game for claims of negligent acts if the act did not arise under a case before the court.
What is Considered Court Negligence?
Consider the situations in which a judge or court personnel make a mistake that causes harm to someone involved in a case. In an extreme case, a judge may issue an erroneous search warrant, and executing that warrant could result in property damage and/or personal injury. Beyond that scenario, the scope of potential court negligence is more complex and less clear.
For example, a child support agency may erroneously calculate a child support obligation, resulting in the judge issuing an erroneous support order. If the order required the obligor to pay thousands more than would otherwise be appropriate based on income, then the overpayment could cause hardship.
The interpretation of the law by a judge could also be considered court negligence in some instances. For example, if a judge took the position that a particular law did not apply in a certain manner, and that interpretation caused a party to lose out on a benefit that he or she would have otherwise been entitled to, then the court could potentially be liable for that interpretation.
Errors by court staff could also potentially be considered court negligence. A court clerk could, for example, fail to serve documents or process documents in a timely manner, prejudicing the parties involved in the related case.
The standard of care for a judge or court personnel, however, is very high, and the burden in proving that the court was negligent is also high.
When Can You Take Legal Action for Court Errors?
As with other forms of government negligence, the courts have determined that one area in which a court is not liable is if a judge or official acts with immunity. In the law, an immunity is a type of defense, which states that the person being prosecuted is exempt from being sued. Judges, in essence, make decisions based on the law, and sometimes they make mistakes. There are legal recourses for judicial errors – an appeal, for example – that are more acceptable than suing the court itself.
Judicial error is the legal definition for mistakes made in the course of a judicial proceeding by a judge or other court official. Examples of this are upped criminal sentences without legal justification, errors regarding the exclusion of evidence, and procedural mistakes, such as losing or misplacing evidence. These actions can be cause for an appeal. An appeal is a request that a higher court review facts, raise legal issues, reverse the decision of the lower court, or reduce the sentence. If the appeal is granted and the higher court agrees with the request, this can lead to a retrial or new sentence.
Retrial is ordered by the court, and is a complete re-examination of the case, often with new counsel. It is held in a court of higher authority than the original. This legal remedy is a mechanism for reviewing and correcting judicial error.
Situations When You Can Sue the Court
We established previously that most of the time suing a court for negligence is not possible. However, there are a few exceptions. For example, if the court’s employees are not acting in their jurisdiction, it may be possible to sue them. It is also possible to sue them if they are acting deliberately and maliciously, thus making the court complicit in their malicious and deliberate actions.
Sometimes cases against a court have been successful because the court did not correctly follow specific procedures. The procedural failures led people to believe erroneously that something legally significant had happened. A good example is the case of Borrelli v. City of New York (1975). In Borrelli a defendant had basically placed into evidence a foreign police department’s arrest report about the plaintiff. The plaintiff asked the court to dismiss the case based on lack of jurisdiction. The court denied the request . Because they entered an order denying the request for dismissal, the defendants reasonably assumed that the court had jurisdiction over the case. In reliance on the court’s orders, the defendants took depositions and destroyed other important evidence in the case. It was later discovered that the court did not and could not have jurisdiction over the case. When the plaintiff tried to dismiss the case, it was held by the courts to be too late. The defendants had relied on the court’s lack of jurisdiction and the court should have known better; therefore, the court was liable.
This case stands as a narrow exception to the general rule that one cannot sue a court for negligence. A court employee handling the ministerial act of entering an order does not have the kind of personal relationship with the parties or knowledge of the facts necessary to hold the court liable. It is worth noting that this exception only exists in a few states including New York.
Options Other Than Suing for Court Negligence
The following are alternatives if you believe some sort of court negligence has occurred:
File an Emergency Appeal
If there are emergency grounds for an appeal, a Notice of Appeal can be filed together with a Motion for an Emergency Stay. The Emergency Appeal and Motion for a Stay will then be heard by the appropriate appellate court.
File a Writ Petition
If immediate relief or appellate review is required, a Petition for a Writ of Mandate can be filed in the appropriate appellate court or Supreme Court if necessary. A Writ is essentially a request that the Court order the lower court not to act contrary to the Writ petition and/or grant specified relief.
Court Complaints
If you believe courthouse staff engaged in misconduct, you can file a complaint with the court or judicial branch of the locality . California Courts encourages reporting allegations of misconduct or improper behavior of judicial officers, employees, or attorneys in California courts. When misconduct is reported, California Courts determines if an investigation is needed. If so, the matter will be referred to the local court’s human resources department or to the local bar association.
Should the claim be of a nature where the state bar can investigate the allegation or complaint, such allegations can be made to the California State Bar. If the alleged misconduct involves the work of a California attorney, the State Bar investigates the complaint.
The State or Local judicial council can also investigate claims of impropriety or misconduct, and different entities can be involved at the State level.